Comment 30 for bug 800561

> Right, sorry, I overlooked it. I should be bumped for the patches 2 to 5.
Would you update the patches?

> They would be sufficient. If you prefer individual setters, I can change the
> patches accordingly.
Let's do it with setters/getters, for flexibility sake.

> With the original order, g-ir-scanner failed on some unknown symbols. It seems
> to have some left-to-right ordering. That's not very scientific, I know, I'm
> not a guru for the g-i implementation.
Ok, let's forget about scientific approach here:)

> I'm not sure that const will help, as even with const the interpreter might
> still need to copy the value. Boxing the struct (i. e. providing a proper
> constructor and _copy() method) should help. Again, I wasn't terribly concerned
> about this particular method; once you are happy with the current patches and
> they can land, we can do the finishing touches.
Agreed.